Here's the thing -- It's far more lucrative that there NOT be global warming. If/when it becomes impossible to deny, then it will be far more lucrative for man to have zero responsibility thus zero control over exacerbating the problem. If anyone wants to make easy money and control populations - climate change being a myth is really the way to go. Isn't that kinda obvious?

You have no interest in CO2 publications. A challenge for me? Give a paper to someone who proves time and time again he doesn't know how to read - the fact that my writing the significant profit is to be made in the established non-renewable resources is completely avoided. The money to be made is in fossil fuels -- It's not even comparable to current green energy investments. and you wave Solyndra up the flag pole.

For anyone actually interested in the CO2 challenge presented here are a few articles -- Check out the citations/references too. There is the IPCC report which is huge and brushed aside a lot but there's good stuff in it. So -- it may not seem as cut and dry as CO2 goes up temp goes up -- but it pretty much does say that

Show me the study that proves that CO2 emmissions are a leading indicator of global temperatures. That is a fairly simple basic step in determining if global warming is anthropogenic. CO2 goes up then temps go up. Pretty f'n simple.

I don't have a lot of time, so I just took the first thing that I found on a Google search. Carbon Dioxide StudyI mean, it sounds like what you're talking about. It's a year or so old, so I don't know if this study has been disputed, refuted, etc. But is this a good jumping-off point for discussing CO2 as a greenhouse effect driver?

The left has these grand plans to save the earth, save the poor, save the 99%. They never ask "At what cost?" though, do they?

When one of the world's principal advocates of global warming, Britain's University of East Anglia, was found to be withholding data that wasn't favorable to their cause... well, that says everything. Scientists aren't supposed to do things like this. This is something that politicians do!

The left has these grand plans to save the earth, save the poor, save the 99%. They never ask "At what cost?" though, do they?

When one of the world's principal advocates of global warming, Britain's University of East Anglia, was found to be withholding data that wasn't favorable to their cause... well, that says everything. Scientists aren't supposed to do things like this. This is something that politicians do!

Of course they never ask that question. In their minds money is the root of all evil and we should live in a socialist utopia where everything is miraculously paid for and people work for free without any incentive.

I don't have a lot of time, so I just took the first thing that I found on a Google search. Carbon Dioxide StudyI mean, it sounds like what you're talking about. It's a year or so old, so I don't know if this study has been disputed, refuted, etc. But is this a good jumping-off point for discussing CO2 as a greenhouse effect driver?

Thanks for making an effort.

The article you cited has the following conclusion: "It is not surprising then that global warming can be linked directly to the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and to human industrial activity in general."

No mention of whether the study shows it to be a leading indicator. It does conclude that warming and CO2 levels are directly linked. While CO2 increases appear to coincide with temperature increases, does the former increase slightly before causing the latter or are both symptoms of another input to the complex system. The correlation vs causation argument.

0

Official Keeper of the 3 story statue of a hockey player by the artist J. Krawczyk.That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence- Christopher Hitchensph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

The left has these grand plans to save the earth, save the poor, save the 99%. They never ask "At what cost?" though, do they?

When one of the world's principal advocates of global warming, Britain's University of East Anglia, was found to be withholding data that wasn't favorable to their cause... well, that says everything. Scientists aren't supposed to do things like this. This is something that politicians do!

Hey Jerry - here is a really articulate article on what that scandal is really all about. I'm not going to shout you down or say you're wrong. I like how you articulate your opinion as you know whether I agree with it or not.

This is from 2009 - the article above from Nature Geoscience out earlier this month is getting closer to confirming the consensus view that anthropogenic warming is speeding things up - his final conclusion is a little more certain -- maybe.

What's important with all of these articles, opinion and scientific, is the level of certainty a scientist holds himself to vs an entertainer like a Rush Limbaugh before pontificating. This guy writing for PM is a professor of geochemistry from Columbia yet says he's not an expert in the field. This is the level of minutia scientists get down to in terms of refuting stuff. It's not just sophist blustering -- it is EXHAUSTINGLY HONEST. Right down to the RIP dude's gripe about the use of the word incontrovertible.

I find that a lot of stuff put forth against these really nearly debilitatingly honest men and women (if applied to normal conversation/understanding) is so far from the truth. What East Anglia did is just wrong on so many levels. But headlines put out by CNN and Fox News are just not even close to the target. So what a scientist would ref to as "strongly inferred" regular news would call proof positive OR an total lack of proof depending on the side you're on. You can't have a discussion between those two camps - a rational give and take - when one side is painstakingly detailed and the other is beyond broad brush strokes even -- they're a bucket of diluted stain thrown in the general direction of the actual issue.

I feel like a lot of blustering by people on this forum like this thread's title - clearly let it be known they do not hold themselves to any standard of truth. The truth is not even being sought. It does make people seem like they have no idea what they are writing about nor do they care. They dont want to read squat from me, why even pretend? They challenge because they have some pat response all set up based not on the kind of facts which they are demanding but the blustering one liners etc they've pre-planned or ripped from Entertainment News personas not any scientist, not even a Big Oil rep, not even a politician. Guys who cackle "global Warming is a Hoax" don't even question why they're being given a message to spout, only say Al Gore is telling pro-green people what to say --- Not giving an ounce of thought to exactly WHO is telling THEM what to say what they ARE saying loud and happy. They never ask why, never seek out really WHY they're being lead to crack smartass quips to the world.

Here's the thing -- It's far more lucrative that there NOT be global warming. If/when it becomes impossible to deny, then it will be far more lucrative for man to have zero responsibility thus zero control over exacerbating the problem. If anyone wants to make easy money and control populations - climate change being a myth is really the way to go. Isn't that kinda obvious?

You have no interest in CO2 publications. A challenge for me? Give a paper to someone who proves time and time again he doesn't know how to read - the fact that my writing the significant profit is to be made in the established non-renewable resources is completely avoided. The money to be made is in fossil fuels -- It's not even comparable to current green energy investments. and you wave Solyndra up the flag pole.

For anyone actually interested in the CO2 challenge presented here are a few articles -- Check out the citations/references too. There is the IPCC report which is huge and brushed aside a lot but there's good stuff in it. So -- it may not seem as cut and dry as CO2 goes up temp goes up -- but it pretty much does say that

I am truely sorry that I read your comments and tried to understand them. From your post I am guessing that your comment regarding there is no money in green initiatives was meant to be that there is more money currently in non-green initiatives. Big difference. I certainly wouldn't argue that current fossil fuel engergy is a larger part of the world's economy than Green is. Never said that. If there was a green technology out there that could compete with fossil fuels on a cost per joule or whatever energy unit you want to use, I would fully support it. Further if there was a more efficient green source out there, it would beat fossil fuels (Nuclear does that but for other risks out there, it is not as prevalent as I think it should be). But that's not what you said. Your myth comment again mystifies me as do most of your posts as you rarely make more than 2 or 3 coherent sentences without degrading to some rant or emoticon stream.

I don't understand why you don't think I have any interest in CO2 publications. My posts have inidcated the exact opposite. So something might have escaped your notice......

In summary:

Fossil fuels make more money than green initiatives- wow captain obvious. Thanks for pointing that outSomething about an easy way to control population with a myth of global warming. No idea what you are trying to say there.I have no interest in CO2 publication. Not true at allI don't know how to read. Not true at all but if the litmus test is understanding your posts then perhaps there is a sliver of truth in thatYou finally came up with some sources in response to my request but already admit that they don't answer my very basic question.

Now on to your articles (interesting, despite the allegation that I am unable to read and am not interested, I did read them. I wonder if you did)

Article #1 has the following quotes:Page 3:

GHG and surface albedo changes are mechanisms causing the large global climate changes in Fig. (1), but they do not initiate these climate swings. instead changes of GHGs and sea level (a measure of ice sheet size) lag temperature change by several hundred years [6, 7, 23, 24].

Page 5:

Pleistocene atmospheric CO2 variations occur as a climate feedback, as carbon is exchanged among surface reservoirs: the ocean, atmosphere, soils and biosphere. The most effective feedback is increase of atmospheric CO2 as climate warms, the CO2 transfer being mainly from ocean to atmosphere [27, 28].

Page 6 to be fair I've included this but I have to call out that there is no citation/reference for this statement and it includes a very curious choice of words- "surely" which implies an assumption not science:

Between 60 and 50 My ago India moved north rapidly, 18-20 cm/year [50], through a region that long had been a depocenter for carbonate and organic sediments. Subduction of carbon-rich crust was surely a large source of CO2 outgassing and a prime cause of global warming, which peaked 50 My ago (Fig. 3b) with the Indo-Asian collision.

So I've read the first article and any direct causation of CO2 to temperatures doesn't seem to be supported by your reference. In fact quotes #1 and #2 appear to assert that CO2 levels LAG temperature changes.

I'll look at the second article later.

Edited by devilsadvoc8, 14 December 2011 - 12:33 PM.

0

Official Keeper of the 3 story statue of a hockey player by the artist J. Krawczyk.That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence- Christopher Hitchensph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

We both know that no study shows absolutely conclusively that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are definitively linked to a specific increase in temperature. A scientist will always use terms that imply assumption because until the deed is done your outcome is assumed. We've gone over this when you tried to make a big deal about a respected Nobel laureate resigning from RPI over the word incontrovertible. That's my point in my post to Jerry above.

When that is definitively proven... it's too late.You can't prove at what temperature water boils until you've boiled it. A scientist will only suggest a probable outcome based upon mounting evidence. This isn't something we want scientists to say "I told you so" about.

So..you have set up something akin to a straw man and this is why I choose to ignore you. Fatal outcomes can be proven on a small scale -- This is massive scale and cannot be reversed once completely conclusive results are provided. You don't want the proof your asking for. That's what's so inane.

But there are people who might get confused with the point you are trying to force - so I posted two articles for them. and then a third

Just for you that I could put in a PM but I dont want you to get the wrong idea: You know and understand everything I write well enough. You're not a total idiot and you know I'm not. I'm not going to waste time with that. You're smart - feel a little more smart than you are but that's neither here nor there... and that's fine. Just so you're not confused, I don't find you personally compelling - sometimes people get confused and it colors their responses. I find the topic compelling and I find a lot of the opinions and conclusion here compelling. You dude, are pretty obvious.

DiG - that's not so obvious and I don't want to shaft him out of information to make you happy. When I ignore you, you win because the real info isn't even out there. When I respond some people may just not read what I post and cackle at your quips and you know - I've decided so what. Whatever dude. Knock yourself out. You can win because it's just not on my agenda.

The first is an old article, not about the correlation between CO2 and temperature increase (as you obviously were hoping I thought) but about how we know CO2 effects the atmosphere and it's filled with a lot of conjecture. That doesn't make it inaccurate - just not incontrovertible

The second is the most recent published paper on the relationship between CO2 and BOTH anthropogenic and natural warming. You can absolutely assert this is gobbledy gook and proves nothing which I'm sure the mere fact the title itself says inferred you will have a field day with. But as I wrote above to Jerry people not familiar with the research shouldn't let the extremely careful choice of words cloud the issue as you would have them.

Man this crap along with all the publications and patents I'm dealing with in real life right now ... I just want a nap. The holiday break can't come soon enough. My friend keeps looking up hen I start clacking away "What are you doing?" Heehee -- all my scientist friends want me to just let it go here So what do you all say? Should I stop and let you be already? Is anyone learning anything helpful? PM me and I'll keep it up -- if not I really have better things to do - but I care! and it so... I just dont grasp how intellegent people with no agenda don't understand. If you understand you can't disagree -- unless you're a kind of out there scientist -- then it's kind of col and I'd love to read what YOU have to say. No one here in the thread is like that though.

I understand your "What if I'm right?" argument. But the science is not ironclad enough to shape public policy. Emissions trading and government subsidies of green businesses are shams and scams. Producers of green products should work tirelessly to persuade Americans that they need their products, and they should work to make their products less expensive. But not surprisingly, liberals don't want to compete in a free market. They want the iron fist of government. I'm pushing against that every time.

I don't believe models predicted a massive rise in C02 coupled with a flattening of temperatures for the last decade. IF CO2 forces temperature rising then an 8-12 year pause in warming during continued increase of CO2 seems unlikely. I know people re-did their models to explain why this pause is happening, but that doesn't mean these models are any better at predicting future events. If we can't come up with models that can predict 10 years into the future then it seems hard to believe the models that predict 100 years into the future.

1

Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind

Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

I don't believe models predicted a massive rise in C02 coupled with a flattening of temperatures for the last decade. IF CO2 forces temperature rising then an 8-12 year pause in warming during continued increase of CO2 seems unlikely. I know people re-did their models to explain why this pause is happening, but that doesn't mean these models are any better at predicting future events. If we can't come up with models that can predict 10 years into the future then it seems hard to believe the models that predict 100 years into the future.

Reminds me of what happened from the 1940s through '70s? During the post-WWII industrial boom, CO2 pollution was ... well ... booming. Yet temperatures fell for nearly 40 years.

I'm fine with there being no government regulation for emission standards etc.

The problem is people think global warming is a hoax. That they do not need to demand companies not put the bottom line first.

Your arguements are all flawed - and no one will acknowledge that. It's really easy to defend a stand with a really vapid "prove it" If I shoot you in the head with this gun you will die.... "Prove it!" I can make you watch me shoot another person and you're OK and have some proof. Well there is no other planet to destroy for you so You're the only person I can shoot - all I can do is shoot parts of your body off bringing you closer and closer. I can shoot your knee cap and you say "but that's not even close to the same make up as my skull and brain - you've proven nothing." Dude -- do you get that once you're shot in the head -- you're dead or severely debilitated? SEE SEE???? NOT DEAD! SEVERELY DIBILITATED! HAHA I'M RIGHT! Oh blessed ^&^#&%...

All the mounting evidence isn't "But what if I'm right" It's way beyond that. To keep saying that it isn't, is to be stupid. I'm sorry to say it but it is.

Here is a site with scientific refernces answering all of the skeptic arguments put forward. SkepticalScience.com

Like I said I'm asking NOTHING except that people UNDERSTAND it's real. I prefer when Jerry says I dont give a sh!t if it's real I just won't spend money on it. At least you see what he's being stubborn about -- you see the reality of it. It DOES bug me to backpeddal and say BUT IT"S STILL NOT REALLY REAL. No it is -- and you dont give a sh!t. and that's fine.

ACTUALLY -- you dont have to. I'd just like to know some people I for some reason care about here aren't so thick. Dont' think that's any kind of viable argument. But it really doesn't matter what you all think in the grander scheme of things. Everyone keeps tell me that. You guys are a minority in the public sector. It's globally understood that it's real. We have developing countries saying they can't afford to cut emissions and all of that -- but they aren't saying anything is a fraud or hoax. This is where the real fun starts and that's when gov'ts say they have to mandate emissions control etc. It bugs me that the real world response to my conundrum here with you all is always Oh come on they're stupid - you're wasting your time" It's like you're Kyydax of the climate change world. You're like Manta with Kovalchuk. It's all just this weird unfounded opinion. and they love saying "what do you expect form a hockey message board" well... Scott Neidermayer agrees with me "Yeah - because his dad is an MD. He's a smart, educated guy" but Scott Stevens didn't go to college - yeha well - he's a hunter and thus a gigantic environmentalist... and he's a snob anyhow -- ok... they dont say that only I do...

yeah -- so I never wasted my time with Kyydax - he was amusing too. SO... i'll accept you all don't REALLY believe this stuff you're just contrarians with agendas uninterested in understanding the situation.

Say what you will but I have no other alternative. I haven't been met with anything compelling to sway me to your view. If what I present to you isnt' compelling or if you choose to only read the "are you stupid?" etc parts.... well -- oh well. So.. if I have ever sounded patronizing I apologize. As I write often enough I'm not that smart... it's just that:

And just to be clear, PK, you say over and over that "it's real." What exactly are you referring to?

Does "it" refer to warming in general? Because practically no one in the skeptical community is saying warming hasn't been happening. You're arguing with yourself if that's your point.

Does "it" refer to the man-caused element of warming? Because that would be the crux of the debate.

In most cases, skeptics would agree with you that "it" is real. The question that begs is: How real is it? Just how much is man actually causing the warming we've seen?

And this is where the skeptics get skeptical. There is a ton of sound science on every side of this topic.

Those firmly-rooted in the man-caused warming community tend to look only at the studies that support their cause. This is cherry-picking, and it's garbage science. The reason the latest email leak is newsworthy is because it not only shows how blatant and intentional the cherry-picking has gotten, but it also shows an actual effort to purposely distort facts that fly in the face of the conclusion they're trying to prove.

Those who are skeptical look at all of it -- the studies showing man has a huge impact on climate, the studies showing man has a negligible impact on climate, the studies showing man's impact is somewhere between huge and negligible, the studies showing man has no impact at all, the studies showing that not enough evidence has been soundly collected to draw any conclusive conclusions whatsoever -- and come away unsure.

Mind you, none of this changes the fact that we pollute too much and we need to burn less oil. Man doesn't need to be bringing about a CO2-driven apocalypse for those points to hold value.

A fledgling market in greenhouse gas emissions in the US also declined, and only the European Union's internal market in carbon remained healthy, worth $120bn. However, leaked documents seen by the Guardian appear to show that even the EU's emissions trading system is in danger.

That's a market that was created out of nothing that generate billions for people, corporations, and governments.

0

Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind

Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

That's a market that was created out of nothing that generate billions for people, corporations, and governments.

Enron had attempted to cut in on the carbon trading scheme.

Edited by Daniel, 30 December 2011 - 09:18 PM.

0

I collect spores, molds and fungus.Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind

Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

Pointing at one day or even a few days is irrelevant. The global warming debate involves trends taking place over decades.

0

"Swim against the tide, don't follow the group, stay away from the majority, seek out the fresh and new, stay away from the poseurs, and don't be a barnacle. Be original, be different, be passionate, be selfless and be free. Be a hockey fan."
--John Buccigross

This has been a hot topic the last few days. Peter Gleick, a climate scientist who often speaks about the ethics, or lack of ethics, in the climate debate, has admitted to identity impersonation and has likely also created a fake document to try and smear those he disagreed with.

Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind

Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.